The Gaming Den

That'd be seriously awesome.

I just learned that intelligent characters wouldn't be able to realize that reloading their weapons is a good idea.

http://community.dicefreaks.com/viewtop ... [br][br]Oh, and that I'm not playing the game right. That, too.

Motion that Dicefreaks be censored to Dicefucks.

I second the motion.

Thirded. Dicefreaks is fucking awful and they don't understand how the game works.

MrWaeseL at [unixtime wrote:1189462372[/unixtime]] Dicefreaks is fucking awful and they don't understand how the game works.

This distinguishes them from...nearly every other board, how?

Their rabid fans and epic fetish.

My favorite bit:

Jaerom Darkwind wrote:[regarding per-encounter balancing]

It removes several layers of strategy from playing a spellcaster, and I like my layers of strategy. Dumbing down resource management may make the game more popular for "video-gamers", but it impoverishes it for the rest of us. No, I take that back. Most video games revolve around resource management, so this isn't for them. I don't even know who this alleged change might cater to. The 12-year-old demographic perhaps?

Okay, so managing your caster's daily resources is a layer of strategy, which means you are going to try to think as a 26 Intelligence character who faces the very real possibility of achieving immortality should he play his cards right. Sounds reasonable.

But then!

Jaerom Darkwind wrote:[regarding intelligent strategy]

Such fearful and timid souls have no place adventuring or facing any sort of danger in the first place. The spellcasters you describe would, when roleplayed realistically, be opposed to leaving their libraries in the first place. A wizard who chooses a life of raiding dungeons and battling monsters is generally going to be willing to take a few risks along the way, and will not only be more interested in what lies ahead than taking the rest of the day off after the first violent encounter, but will also tend to be disgusted with the idea of immediate retreat as a primary strategy.

And if I were playing any other character in the party, I'd refuse to adventure with such a coward as you describe. He'd probably leave me to die at the first sign of real danger anyways.

Really, the four-man-adventuring-party-based social systems that make most campaign worlds go 'round could never have evolved in the first place if spellcasters acted like that.

These posts don't mix!

Yeah, I like how basically there's no real counter to the rest every day strategy beyond, "lets pray people don't do it, or their own party leaves them behind."

But they're still in favor of having things work on a per day system. I mean wtf?

I add my support to Dicefreaks being wordfiltered as Dicefucks.

That being said, I like some of their ideas. But just because I found a gold coin in a pile of shit doesn't mean I'm taking the shit to the bank. I'll even have a good hard think about the coin, too.

Dicefucks wrote:
just like a paladin isn't suddenly incredibly weak after using his daily smite.

HA! Sure he is, it's just that he was also incredibly weak BEFORE using it. 0 - 0 = 0

1) Who said intelligent people don't reload their weapons? Nowhere in that thread does anyone discuss reload times for weapons.

2) A marketing answer is completely independent of a roleplaying answer. An adventurer might be considered less prudent and more impatient than average, and then played along that path. Besides, what ever DM doesn't have the room you just wiped out replenish over the next eight to twelve hours is one that has no real answer to a strategic opponent.

3) Find better things to whine about, please.

Those guys didn't say much out of line, 'cept maybe fearro-whatshisname, who was apparently trolling.

Actual tears, please.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Actual tears, please.

-Crissa

I cry manly tears of tearness every time I see you post.

Every time?

(QUOTE)
After all, if the party is not under any time constraints, why not nova every encounter and then teleport back to the party stronghold for recharging?


Because it's a pansy, cheesy way to play? Because you are adventurers, not sissies? Because the absolute most economic/effective solution is not always apparent to people within the world? Because your buddies who aren't going nova will now continue on, getting all of the treasure? Because it is fricken tiresome? Using video games as another example, it might be ideal to save after every encounter, or even to rest and save after every encounter, but no (perhaps, few) player does that because it gets tedious and sucks the fun out things. (END QUOTE)

My group rested and recharged after a battle at LEVEL 2. After determining that the hobbit child that they had rescued was actually an evil necromancer directing the zombie attacks, they ran to the church, barred the windows/doors (mendings/iron spikings), KOed the hobbit, and attempted to re-memorize spells to be prepared for the Ritual of Tomb Cleansing at 1AM (where there will surely be more zombies/skeletons/necromancers). I mean really, the only reason you wouldn't reload after shooting most of your ammo would be because you thought that adventuring onward was safer than staying at the scene of the crime for the next 8 hours.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1189495551[/unixtime]]1) Who said intelligent people don't reload their weapons? Nowhere in that thread does anyone discuss reload times for weapons.

They implied it by referring to the spells. No-one actually cares about crossbows, they were talking about resting to regain spell slots after going all-out.

Compare it to the real world. It makes more sense to reload your assault rifle than to say "Well, that's my ammo for the day, now I should just just use the knife."

That's what they meant. I too took that literally when I clicked the link, trying to find a reference to why people wouldn't reload crossbows. Then I realised what NiN meant.

After all, if the party is not under any time constraints, why not nova every encounter and then teleport back to the party stronghold for recharging?

Because it's a pansy, cheesy way to play? Because you are adventurers, not sissies?

Look, I hate nova style in general, but this question really gets my blood boiling. No it's not a pansy, cheesy way it is a most logical and reasonable approach ... precisely because "the party is not under any time constraints." It's the "IF" part of the clause that sucks dude, not the then. The party should always be under "time constraints" if only the time constraint of "actions have consequences and the longer the time between actions the more other people have of both knowing of your existance and knowing your tactics."

Because, shit, if you design a scenario where you can take on room #1, and there is no difference in room #2 if the party takes it on five minutes, five hours, the next day, or even the next month, then you as a DM deserve exactly what you get. It's not the players fault you just defenestrated game balance out the window without even having the dignity to open the window first.

You want to climb the highest mountain, you set up a base camp, advance a while, set up another base camp, advance a while and repeat ad nauseum. You can do that because the advantages of setting up a base camp outweigh that of going full out non stop for as long as you can.

What general would not rather advance, set up camp and get resupplies and repeat ad nauseum? If there are no time constraints logic practically stands on the table and demands that you do the prudent approach.

It's all about the time constaints baby. Take them away and you're the guilty party; not your players.

MrWaeseL at [unixtime wrote:1189499295[/unixtime]]I cry manly tears of tearness every time I see you post.

You know, I've never seen Crissia post. I've seen her posts, but I've never actaully seen her in the process of posting.

Also: I seriously wouldn't call a Wizard a sissy after he or she has just rested up and prepared all their spells for the day and has a habit of doing that for every encounter. Because he or she has just rested up and prepared all their spells for the day and has a habit of doing that for every encounter, and I could be today's encounter.

As a side note, a few games I have been running have unintentionally been given the time restraints (one is set on the battlefield of the Blood War as a starting point. Another is Sigil Prep, so if they take too long, they fail stuff. Which sucks for them. For the extra-curricular stuff, well, it's a school filled with adventurers. If they don't hurry on any given goal, someone else will beat them to it). Running very smoothly so far.

If you nova on the orcs from room #1, spike the door and plan to rest and regain spells such that you can nova orcs from room #2, expect a rude awakening from any sane DM.

Sometimes it works, yes. Teleport-assassination missions may destroy all targets before the other targets are informed of the destroyed targets. But come on, the orcs in room #2 are going to notice that the orcs in room #1 didn't show up for the next EIGHT hours (2-3 meals). They are going to grab a battering ram knock down the door to the room you spiked.

Of course my players have been attacked once so far from an invisible quasit that snuck by the guard (the demon motivating/controlling a few of the necromancers). And OF COURSE there will be a necromancer/skeleton/zombie-survival battle once night falls. Seriously, you can rest and recover in about one situation: you are hiding in an area not likely to be found (Rope Trick anyone?). Even then, expect the area to be fortified and the enemies prepared when you "wake up". You will make the dungeon harder, but you will have more tools to deal with it (once again, it is a logical decision).

There's the Planeshift shuffle, which means they have all of 12-18 seconds to prepare for your return. But that's looking at reasonably high levels, and a problem that is often ignored by dint of "Don't be dumb".

SunTzuWarmaster at [unixtime wrote:1189518200[/unixtime]]If you nova on the orcs from room #1, spike the door and plan to rest and regain spells such that you can nova orcs from room #2, expect a rude awakening from any sane DM.

Joe Orc: "Hey Bill, the humans have spiked themselves in this room what should we do?"

Bill Orc: "Spiked themselves in? Great idea, let's spike the other side of the door as well. Although technically on this side of the door it's probably better to copper coin the door shut." (Shoving pennies into the door to jam it is a common college stunt.)

Bob Orc: "Don't forget to seal the door with wax, I don't think that room has a decent ventilation system."

Joe Orc: "I wonder if we can ask the BBEG to dimension door a rust monster into the room?"

Even better, if the adventuring party can breathe, just start taking burning tindertwigs, torches, acid fog, etc. and choke the characters to death while they rest!

SunTzuWarmaster at [unixtime wrote:1189518200[/unixtime]]If you nova on the orcs from room #1, spike the door and plan to rest and regain spells such that you can nova orcs from room #2, expect a rude awakening from any sane DM.

That's just stupid. Nobody actually rests in the dungeon, unless it's inside a rope trick.

You just teleport back to your base and rest, or in the case of low level characters, you just go out somewhere in the wilderness about a day away and try to rest. If the enemy doesn't have any trackers, then you should be ok. Granted this is a much more difficult tactic to counter at high levels than it is at low levels, because at high levels, you really can't even follow the party.

tzor wrote:
Because, shit, if you design a scenario where you can take on room #1, and there is no difference in room #2 if the party takes it on five minutes, five hours, the next day, or even the next month, then you as a DM deserve exactly what you get. It's not the players fault you just defenestrated game balance out the window without even having the dignity to open the window first.

Actually, a great deal of adventures don't have meaningful time constraints. See, there's a difference between failing the mission and not getting any treasure or XP. Even if the village gets burned down, or the princess gets killed or whatever, you can still damn well go and kill the bad guys, because you don't even care. And they'll still have all the treasure they did before. Especially evil characters may not even care about the time constraints. Even neutrals or goods who are just out to destroy the evildoers probably won't either.

Basically the whole time constraint thing is all about getting PCs who make characters who are willing to play ball, because if they're not, and they want to do things on their own time table. Then you're screwed. And god forbid if PCs actually decide to come up with their own plans. I mean if you want to just go loot some ruin that's been there for centuries, then chances are it's going to be there next week or even next month, after all, if it lasted for 200 years, time isn't a big factor. The DM is just being a prick if he says that suddenly because you decided to loot it, another group of adventurers decides to beat you to it all of a sudden and you're in a close race to the treasure.

Yes, they can call in reinforcements and you can start a war of attrition as they refill rooms that you've cleared. But so what? Again, more XP and treasure. The fact that you happen to be fighting in the same room over and over again is pretty irrelevant.

Do you always empty your ammo clip into the goblins?

If every battle is full-tilt, takes-all-resources, of course you're going to take it once at a time. But so you used your one big spell for the day, and went Nova...

...What's stopping the guys in the next room from pulling their guys from rest and counter-attacking while you're down?

No one in that thread was talking about weapons being empty, still. No one in this thread was, either. It's an age old problem of dungeon or DM incompetence - because there should always be time constraints. Treasure really does walk away while you're resting.

-Crissa